Well, I sometimes describe myself as an anti-anti-transhumanist. I do support obtaining benefits from enhancement technologies, but above all I oppose any sweeping use of the coercive power of the state to forbid these technologies. That’s a slightly different point. I distinguish between initiatives that I actually support, initiatives that I don’t necessarily support but think should be legal, and initiatives that IMHO should (to some extent or another) be illegal on grounds that relate to secular harm. I apply my own adaptation of Feinberg’s adaptation of Mill’s harm principle when I look at the issue of legality. In addition to that, I want to see all the possible initiatives debated rationally and with intellectual rigour - however I classify them personally.

Some of my IEET colleagues feel a much stronger ethical imperative to do certain H+ things than I do. My aim is to defend a range of possible H+ initiatives at the same time as I defend many other things that are not specifically about enhancement (e.g. gay rights, abortion rights, liberalisation of drug laws). The kind of position I take is an aggressively secular liberal one, partly motivated by my sympathy for transhumanism and partly motivating it.

I produced a manifesto recently, so if anyone wants to read what I think in more detail, and to see whether it resonates with your thinking, it’s over here: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/04/do-we-want-truly-liberal-society.html